MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940044694 · doi:10.5821/iwp.2018.20.14849

Deep sea spy: a collaborative annotation tool

2018· article· en· W2940044694 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marjolaine Matabos, Catherine Borremans, P. Bossard, Julie Tourolle, Jozée Sarrazin

Bibliographic record

VenueInstrumentation viewpoint · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnotationOceanographyGeographyComputer scienceGeologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2010, remote hydrothermal ecosystems are continuously being monitored using video cameras deployed on instrumented platforms. The acquisition of high-frequency video data from deep-sea observatories like EMSOAzores or Ocean Networks Canada provide information on species behaviour, feeding habits, growth, reproduction and organisms’ response to changes in environmental conditions. Video cameras acquire hourly data representing thousands of hours and Tera Bytes of footage but their manual processing is time-consuming and highly labour-intensive, and cannot be comprehensively undertaken by individual researchers. In order to help preliminary manual assessment of this huge imagery archive, a free online annotation tool was developed to gather contributions from a wider community. The Deep Sea Spy system offers a fun and engaging web interface to members of the public to help perform initial footage annotations. The platform now hosts 623 active annotators who contributed 179,663 annotations to 19,541 images. Preliminary analyses highlight a high variability among participants but show promising results to detect trends in species abundance variation over time. Ultimately, the information gathered via this approach can help improving the algorithms necessary to produce accurate automated detection in imagery using a machine learning approach.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstrumentation viewpointSame topicTime Series Analysis and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207